Thursday, 27th February 2003.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Chancellor on 10 February (WA 76), whether there is any other profession whose members are appointed to senior positions on the recommendation of a Minister of the Crown because it helps consumers by providing "a quality mark".[HL1634]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): I am aware of no other professions in which members are appointed to senior positions by Her Majesty the Queen on the recommendation of a Minister of the Crown, with the aim of providing a quality mark for consumers.
Crown Prosecution Service: Decision-making
Lord Christopher asked the Attorney-General:
Whether he will make a statement about the process by which decisions are reached within the Crown Prosecution Service in cases of complexity or seriousness.[HL1483]
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): With effect from today there will be a new approach to decision-making to assist the most senior and experienced lawyers in the CPS to make decisions in the most complex and serious cases. In future, where the case papers are particularly voluminous, the decision-maker may be assisted by another experienced lawyer, who will provide the decision-maker with a detailed analysis of the case, drawing attention to the key issues on which the decision must depend. The decision-maker may rely on this analysis, together with the essential evidence in the case papers and supplemented by such other evidence as the decision-maker chooses to consider, in applying the tests set out in the code for crown prosecutors and making his decision.
This approach marks a change from the procedures put in place following the publication in August 1999 of the report of His Honour Gerald Butler QC into CPS decision-making in relation to deaths in custody and related matters. The recommendations in that report referred to the need for the decision-maker to read "the whole of the relevant documentation". The effect has been that the most senior lawyers in the CPS have been precluded by their other commitments from taking decisions in some of the service's most serious and important casework. The new approach will allow a more effective use of their time and will thus enable greater input by senior lawyers into the most critical casework decisions that the service faces.
27 Feb 2003 : Column WA48
Certificates of Identity
Baroness Gale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take following the recent consultation on the Certificate of Identity travel document.[HL1916]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): On 6 February we announced that we would consult on plans to tighten the policy on issuing Certificates of Identity. We have completed the consultation as quickly as possible, as there was evidence of abuse. From 27 March, these documents will be available only to people who can prove that they need them.
The change has proved necessary because some people who claim to have fled their home countries in fear of their lives have used our documents to travel back. Recently, we found 125 Iraqis using these documents on just 16 flights to Damascus, which is 140 miles from the Iraqi border. (There are no direct flights to Iraq). We cannot allow this to continue. We have decided that all applicants for a Certificate of Identity, including those who have indefinite leave to enter or remain, must prove that they cannot obtain a passport from the authorities of their own country. People who have exceptional leave to enter or remain (i.e. leave for a limited period) will also have to show that they need to travel for an essential reason, such as business, education, religion or compassionate circumstances. They will have to tell us which country they need to travel to and will not be allowed to go to any other countries using the Certificate of Identity.
With this change of policy, we also intend to send a clear message that the United Kingdom takes its obligations seriously, and we expect those who benefit from our protection to do the same.
Prison Service Pay Review Body Report
Lord Hoyle asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will publish the report for 2003 of the England and Wales Prison Service Pay Review Body report.[HL1917]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The second report of the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) on the pay of governing governors and operational managers, prison officers and related grades in England and Wales in 2003 has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
The PSPRB has continued to be impressed by the professionalism and dedication it found among the remit group staff, particularly in view of the pressures of rising prisoner numbers. It has recommended a basic rise of 2.8 per cent, which is in line with the rate of inflation in December 2002 and other review body awards.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, has decided that the recommendations will be implemented in full, with effect from the operative date of the award of 1 April 2003.
27 Feb 2003 : Column WA49
The key recommendations of the report are:
A 2.8 per cent increase to basic pay rates from 1 April 2003;
Locality allowances paid to Prison Service staff in eligible areas in London and the South East will be increased from 1 April 2003:
from £3,500 to 3,800 per annum for the top rate
from £2,300 to £3,000 per annum for a new "higher" rate
from £2,300 to £2,500 per annum for the middle rate
from £1,000 to £1,100 per annum for the lower rate
An improved performance-related progression system for operational managers from 1 April 2003 and assimilation to a new pay spine retrospectively to 1 January 2003;
An increase of 2.8 per cent to the healthcare specialist allowance paid to prison officers from 1 April 2003. Other specialist allowances frozen at current rates; and
Other allowances increased by 2.8 per cent.
Criminal Records Bureau
Lord Hoyle asked Her Majesty's Government
Whether they intend to publish the conclusions and recommendations of the independent review team on the Criminal Records Bureau, and the Government's response to that review. [HL1918]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On 6 September 2002, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the appointment of an independent review team, led by Patrick Carter, to take a fundamental look at the operations of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). In particular, the review team was tasked to support the CRB management in the short term and to identify necessary longer-term changes in the way the CRB operates to ensure that it can deliver its twin objectives of providing greater protection for children and vulnerable adults whilst ensuring that the disclosure process does not act as a bar to speedy recruitment.
We have today placed in the Library the main findings and recommendations of the independent review team.
We are extremely grateful to Patrick Carter and his two colleaguesJohn Holden and Ron Skellyfor their rapid and thorough examination of the situation at the CRB and their recommendations on the way forward. The team has come up with a wide ranging set of recommendations for improvements to the CRB intended to enable it to to meet future challenges as demand for its services continues to grow. The CRB is a vital element of the Government's programme to improve the protection of children and vulnerable adults from those who might wish to harm them. It needs to be put on a sounder footing to meet these
27 Feb 2003 : Column WA50
objectives more effectively and provide the levels of service rightly expected by its customers.
The independent review team's recommendations build on the steady improvement in the CRB's performance over the past six months which has seen the average number of disclosures issued rise from 24,500 per week in August 2002 to the current 40,000 per week. Some 80 per cent of standard disclosures and 50 per cent of enhanced disclosures are now issued within three weeks. These improvements have been achieved by both the agency and Capita working in partnership to deliver the service that the CRB's customers are entitled to receive.
The Government propose to take forward the 10 recommendations in the report as follows:
1 Ways should be sought of optimising the end-to-end CRB process efficiency, by reviewing and rationalising the management responsibilities and respective roles in the complete chain undertaken by Registered Bodies, the CRB Agency, Capita and local police forces.
The Government agree that the roles of the different parties involved in the CRB process should be strengthened and clarified. In particular, we intend to enhance the intelligent customer function within the agency so that there is a stronger focus on setting standards across the whole operation and ensuring that these are met. There also needs to be better management co-ordination of the CRB end-to-end business processes. This may involve the more flexible deployment of agency and private sector staff and to this end we will take powers in the Criminal Justice Bill to enable the Secretary of State's functions under Part V of the Police Act 1997 to be exercised by the private sector as well as agency staff.
2 The critical role of Registered Bodies in the CRB process needs to be recognised and upgraded. Registered bodies should be unambiguously responsible for validating the identity of those for whom they seek Disclosures and for ensuring the quality and completeness of applications submitted to the CRB. The number of Registered Bodies should be optimised to establish sensible economies of scale and improve proficiency.
The Government accept this recommendation and will legislate this Session to make it clear that registered bodies are responsible for verifying the identity of an applicant. It would, as now, be open to a registered body to delegate the function of validating identity to the prospective employer or other agent while retaining overall responsiblity, as long as we are satisfied in a particular case that delegation provides a reasonable safeguard. To ensure that registered bodies discharge their responsibilities effectively, we will take powers to attach conditions to a registration and to revoke a registration where such conditions are breached. We share the review team's view that optimum levels of efficiency within a registered body can best be achieved by handling a sufficient number of disclosure applications. With the new responsibilities for registered bodies, a number of those currently countersigning relatively small numbers of applications may seek to de-register of their own volition. We will monitor the situation carefully. The Government will take reserve powers to set a threshold for the minimum number of
27 Feb 2003 : Column WA51
applications to be processed by a registered body each year and to de-register those registered bodies which fall below the threshold. Registered bodies and others across the sectors which use the CRB's disclosure service will be fully consulted before those changes are implemented. We will take particular account of concerns that have been expressed about access to registered bodies and the level of fees charged by some umbrella bodies. As part of the consultation exercise, we will seek views on placing a cap on the fees that may be levied by registered bodies.
3 There shoud be a progressive move to mandate electronic submission of applications by Registered Bodies.
The CRB will introduce an electronic appplication channel as soon as practicable; a pilot will be undertaken later this year. We believe that many registered bodies will want to adopt this channel as their preferred means of submitting disclosure applications. In time, as more and more registered bodies migrate to the electronic channel there will be a diminishing case, on efficiency grounds, for maintaining the existing paper and telephone channels. At that point, consideration would need to be given whether to mandateby means of a condition attached to registrationthe electronic channel for registered bodies to submit applications to the CRB. This will not preclude individuals submitting their applications to registered bodies by paper or telephone channels where mutually agreed.
4 Given that the production of Enhanced Disclosures is significantly more costly and ties up local police force resources, new arrangements should be established for the Agency to set priorities, in accordance with Government Guidelines, on which applications should get Enhanced and which should get Standard Disclosures.
The Government agree with the spirit of this recommendation, but it is important that the criteria are set by Ministers, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, on the basis of a risk assessment. Having established the criteria for standard and enhanced disclosures it is important that there is some mechanism to ensure that they are properly observed. It is proposed, therefore, to amend the Police Act 1997 first to enable the type of disclosure for any given occupational group to be determined by regulations and then to enable the CRB to give effect to such regulations. Where necessary, the CRB would be expected to seek additional information from the registered body in order that it could make its assessment in any given case. We will take account of the views of registered bodies and others before implementing these changes.
5 It is recommended that the Police National Computer (PNC) files are "flagged" to denote the existence of intelligence information on any individual held at local force level and not included in convictions recorded on the PNC.
The cost and feasibility of introducing a system of flags on the PNC to denote the existence of local intelligence will be tested in a pilot due to commence in three forces (Metropolitan Police, Staffordshire and West Midlands) in the spring. Decisions about the rollout of such a system will be taken in the light of the outcome of the pilot.
27 Feb 2003 : Column WA52
6 It is recommended that the launch of Basic Disclosures be postponed until the CRB systems have been developed to provide a substantially greater capacity. It would be inappropriate the launch Basic Disclosures until higher priority categories of applicant for higher level Disclosures are seeing their needs fully accommodated. It is also recommended that Basic Disclosure applications should be routed through Registered Bodies, with identity validation undertaken by these Bodies, rather than allow direct submission from applicants as currently envisaged by the legislation.
The Government concur that the priority for the CRB is to ensure that demand for higher level disclosures is fully met and that applicants for such disclosures receive a satisfactory service. Basic disclosures will not be introduced until these objectives have been achieved. The Government note the case for routing applications for a basic disclosure through a registered body as in the case of standard and enhanced disclosures, but will want to consult fully with employer organisations and others on the implications before coming to a final view. In the event that the Government decide to proceed, legislation would be needed to implement this recommendation.
7 The Information Technology system built and operated by Capita has been subject to a range of improvements and enhancements since original delivery, as a result of which performance has improved. A further programme of significant enhancement will be required. Additionally, almost all the recommendations set out here would lead to requirements for system change and therefore would have contractual consequences. It is therefore recommended to attempt to renegotiate the contract with Capita to implement necessary technology renewal and align the contract to the changed and evolving circumstances.
The Government accept this recommendation and will seek to renegotiate the contract with Capita so that it reflects the changed environment in which the CRB will be operating.
8 An investigation should be undertaken into the possibility of requiring fingerprints to be submitted by applicants for Disclosures where the sensitivity of the employment role to be undertaken makes this appropriate. This would enable a more rigorous linking of police records (which in turn are mostly linked to fingerprints) and the individuals submitting applications for Disclosures. This investigation will need to look at the balance to be struck between such increasing rigour of CRB identity processes and the cost and convenience of the service to the customer.
The Government will undertake a further study in consultation with registered bodies and others on the case for, and practicalities of, requiring applicants for disclosures in particularly sensitive employment roles to submit their fingerprints with their application. Among the issues the study will need to address is how to avoid any unnecessary intrusion into the privacy of applicants. A decision whether to proceed will be taken in the light of the results of the consultation exercise. Legislation would be needed to implement this change.
9 While recognising the benefits derived from establishing the CRB under the wing of an existing Agency, it is now recommended that an independent Executive Agency is created within the Home Office to carry forward the CRB's changing and increasingly demanding functions. There will need to be a transitional period which will be overseen by a transitional Management Board operating within an appropriate governance framework.
27 Feb 2003 : Column WA53
The Government agree that the CRB, currently part of the Passport and Records Agency, should be reconstituted as a free-standing agency. The new agency will be established as soon as practicable. A transitional board has been established to ensure a smooth transition. John Holden has agreed to serve as the non-executive chairman of the board and Patrick Carter and Ron Skelley as non-executive members. A stakeholder group will be established under John Holden's chairmanship to represent the interests of government departments and the police.
10 In order to implement a number of the recommendations, changes to the legislative framework under which the CRB operates (Part V of the Police Act 1997) will be required.
As indicated above, the Government will take forward in the Criminal Justice Bill the necessary legislative changes needed to implement Recommendations 1, 2 and 4.